As Stated By Chief Justice John Roberts:
"In the decades after Lochner, the Court struck down nearly 200 laws as violations of individual liberty, often over strong dissents contending that “[t]he criterion of constitutionality is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good.”...By empowering judges to elevate their own policy judgments to the status of constitutionally protected liberty,” the Lochner line of cases left “no alternative to regarding the court as a . . . legislative chamber.” "
Eventually, the Court recognized its error and vowed not to repeat it. “The doctrine that . . . due process authorizes
courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely,” we later explained, “has long since been discarded. We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.” Thus, it has become an accepted rule that the Court will not hold laws unconstitutional simply because we find them “unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”
"In the decades after Lochner, the Court struck down nearly 200 laws as violations of individual liberty, often over strong dissents contending that “[t]he criterion of constitutionality is not whether we believe the law to be for the public good.”...By empowering judges to elevate their own policy judgments to the status of constitutionally protected liberty,” the Lochner line of cases left “no alternative to regarding the court as a . . . legislative chamber.” "
Eventually, the Court recognized its error and vowed not to repeat it. “The doctrine that . . . due process authorizes
courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely,” we later explained, “has long since been discarded. We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.” Thus, it has become an accepted rule that the Court will not hold laws unconstitutional simply because we find them “unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”